AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Battu Devanand, J
The petitioner is the holder of passport bearing No.K2752305. He has filed for renewal of his passport by way of an application bearing No. VJ 2074052653522, dated 21.03.2022. This application was not being considered by the 3rd respondent on account of the pendency of FIR No.108 of 2021 before the 4th respondent. This crime was registered under Sections 406, 420, 447, 506 IPC and Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
The petitioner has moved this Court on the ground that application of the petitioner cannot be kept aside or refused on the ground that FIR is pending against the petitioner. He relies upon Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) to contend that he does not fall in any of the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Act, due to which he can be refused a passport or renewal of a passport.
He also relies upon the Central Government Notification bearing No. G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 to contend that even the said notification would not bar his application for renewal of the passport.
The learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions submits that the said crime is under investigation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 27.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017 in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, after considering Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act had held that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal case and directed the passport authority to renew the passport.
The issue and renewal of passports is regulated by the Passport Act, 1967. Section 6(2), extracted below, is relevant for this purpose.
(2) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section
(2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.,
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India.,
(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country.,
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a Court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years.,
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court of India.,
(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court.,
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation.,
(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.
The grounds on which, the renewal of the passport of the petitioner is being refused could, at best, fall within Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act. This provision has been considered in various cases and the ambit of this provision is fairly settled.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court.
The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court, only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).
In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceeding before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, for renewal of his passport, without raising any objection relating to the pendency of Crime No.108 of 2021 of Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District.
However, this order shall not preclude the 4th respondent from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.